logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.08.13 2018구합72154
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company that ordinarily employs approximately 800 workers to engage in semiconductor-related business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was a person who joined the Plaintiff Company on November 2, 2009 and served as the planning and management team leader from April 1, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “business support team” from 2017; hereinafter referred to as “Planning management team”) regardless of whether it was before or after the change of name; and the Intervenor C was a person who joined the Plaintiff Company on August 1, 2009 and worked as the planning and management team leader from March 1, 2012.

【A Certificate No. 3 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) unless the number is specified in any other Certificate

(A) Evidence No. 6-2, B-B No. 1). (b)

Plaintiff

A company was incorporated into an affiliate of the E group on July 2014, and was audited by the E-management diagnosis team from September 4, 2017 to October 26, 2017.

The E-Management Diagnosis Team, which has completed internal audit, concluded that the Intervenor's fault in performing his/her duties was found.

C. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff Company held a disciplinary committee. On the same day, the disciplinary committee deliberated on the grounds for disciplinary action as indicated in the following table, and decided on the disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff Company notified the Intervenor of the disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal” (hereinafter) (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”) (by individually specifying the grounds for disciplinary action as indicated in the following table, the type of “Disciplinary Reason” shall be indicated using the number of items in the “net” (where the grounds for disciplinary action are individually specified, the number shall be indicated in the form of “Disciplinary Reason”). (No. 5 Intervenor B, No. C, No. 1 of the Disciplinary Reason No. 5, the payment of the fixed unit purchase price of IT assets 1 for the fixed unit purchase cost of IT assets 1 for the fixed unit purchase cost of IT assets, 2 low unit purchase commission for the high unit purchase of real estate brokerage commission for the low unit purchase of IT assets and 3 unit purchase without permission for the unauthorized Removal of the 4th unit purchase

arrow